We Might All Have to Pay for Gender-Affirming Care


A federal appellate court in Richmond is the first to rule that state health-care plans must pay for gender-affirming surgeries, a major win for transgender rights amid a nationwide wave of anti-trans activism and legislation.

The Washington Post (WaPo) based its ruling on a set of cases in West Virginia and North Carolina.

It’s alleged discrimination to not pay for gender-affirming care. This does mean more costs and possibly cutting out necessary healthcare.

WaPo calls it trailblazing:

Judge Roger Gregory, writing for the majority, called the restrictions “obviously discriminatory” based on both sex and gender.

It’s the second ruling in favor of trans rights this month from the 4th Circuit, a once-conservative court that has become a trailblazer in the realm of transgender rights.

The court was the first to say trans students had a right to use the bathrooms that align with their gender identity and the first to recognize gender dysphoria as a protected disability. Earlier this month, the court said a federally funded middle school could not ban a [alleged] trans-13-year-old from playing on the girls’ track and field team.

Judge Jay Richardson, a Trump appointee, dissented, writing that the federal court should not police what treatments health-care plans decide to cover.

Richardson wrote that the majority opinion “treats these cases as new fronts upon which this conflict must be waged. However, not every battle is part of a larger war. In the majority’s haste to champion the plaintiffs’ cause, today’s result oversteps the bounds of the law.

It might be appealed to the Supreme Court.


In a series of tweets, Matt Walsh updated people on the recent Idaho law that was temporarily halted:

“In Sept 2022, I broke the story that Vanderbilt doctors were chemically castrating minors in the name of “gender-affirming care.”

“This week, 19 state attorneys general cited my reporting in a brief to the Supreme Court in a case that has nationwide implications for children.

“The case concerns a law in Idaho which bans the castration & mutilation of children. A judge has temporarily halted the enforcement of the law because Idaho “allows the same treatments for cisgender minors that are deemed unsafe and thus banned for transgender minors.”

“This reasoning is absurd, as the attorneys general noted. There is no comparison between a vaginoplasty for a girl following trauma and a ‘vaginoplasty’ that’s performed by removing a boy’s genitals and creating fake body parts with skin grafts.

“Additionally, neither courts nor “experts” have any authority to permit the mutilation of children. As the AGs note, the videos I exposed reveal just how callous and financially motivated these experts are.

“The judge’s injunction in Idaho should be struck down, just like the injunction against a similar law here in Tennessee was recently struck down. By exposing the doctors butchering children, we’re having a real impact in court — and we’re saving children as a result.…”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments